User talk:Matt620
Hi, welcome to Mass Effect Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the Kaidan Alenko page. Be sure to check out our Style Guide and Community Guidelines to help you get started, and please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- Lancer1289 (Talk) 05:24, March 19, 2012 Demonstrate Please demonstrate where in the article, or the previous sentence, with quotes, that it states what it does with the valid content you insist on removing time and time again. This is getting annoying because you keep citing reasons that don't exist. The information is relevant, is not a blog type entry as it provides a clear reason to bring EDI on missions with Cerberus, and frankly a good tactic. Therefore, if you cannot site a valid reason for removal of valid content, then you are shifting into edit war territory, a bannable offense. Lancer1289 22:07, April 22, 2012 (UTC) "Bringing EDI allows you to set up powerful tech explosions with Overload and Incinerate." That is the previous sentence, and it states the exact same thing as the sentence you insist on putting up. No new information is provided in the following sentence: Gameplay difficulty is not relevant because the tactic works on all of them. If you believe it to be relevant specifically to Cerberus opponents, place it on the Squad Members Guide (Mass Effect 3) page, where there is a section for countering Cerberus foes: It does not belong in the Sentinel guide, where specific enemies are not mentioned. Unless you can provide a legitimate reason why restating the same data in two sentences is relevant, it will continue to be removed. Matt620 22:44, April 22, 2012 (UTC) :And unless you can provide an actual reason to keep removing valid information, then you will face consequences for removing valid information. Your reason is that it is covered, and that is not even close to being the case. Specific things like that are quite relevant and have a place there. There is no reason to keep removing it apart from you do not like it at this point. Lancer1289 22:51, April 22, 2012 (UTC) :: There is a reason not to restate the same thing twice, particularly in two subsequent sentences. Your concerns have been answered, and you have not provided a single reason as to why the reasoning is incorrect aside from your personal opinion. Provide a legitimate reason why that specific sentence is needed or desist in cluttering the guide with constant restatements. Matt620 22:56, April 22, 2012 (UTC) :::And so where is that reason? Because I am seeing a very big lack of one. You have said multiple times that the information stated in those sentences is covered in the article. Yet it can be clearly demonstrated that it isn't. So you keep calling me incorrect, when you are arguing from a completely false standpoint. The information isn't covered in any way, shape, or form apart from a very vague sentence. Unless you can provide a legitimate reason for removing valid content, then it is you who must desist because you are the one trying to change the article, and to date, you have yet to present any valid reason to justify the removal of valid and relevant information. There is no statement stating the same information twice, in fact, nothing of the sort. So come up with a reason, and then this can be pursued, but if you keep trying to argue what you are arguing, then you will get nowhere because you are removing valid information, based on a demonstartably false reason. Lancer1289 23:02, April 22, 2012 (UTC) :::: A reason has been stated twice already: That the preceeding sentence: "Bringing EDI allows you to set up powerful tech explosions with Overload and Incinerate" already states this. You state it is a worthwhile tactic, and it is, and thus, it is stated. No more details are needed. Now, provide evidence that this sentence does not, in fact, state what the offending statement does. There is absolutely no reason to specifically mention which foes it works against because the tactic is effective on all foes: It's actually more effective on geth foes because more geth foes have shielding and/or armor than Cerberus foes do. There is no need to state which difficulty level it is effective on because it is effective on all of them. You're providing an absolutely useless specification that is summed up succinctly with the knowledge fo the tactic. Matt620 23:12, April 22, 2012 (UTC) :Let's go with the specifics. There is nothing wrong with specifics in a guide, so why are you making a case that it is. I already stated that it is vague as can be, which by the way you completely glossed over thank you very much. The class guides are really quite open as to the content they can cover, but very specific information, like "on this mission" belongs in that specific walkthrough proper. :I know this might be a shock, but there is reason to state difficulty level, and what specific enemy if it is relevant, which it is. If you do not, then valuable, and relevant information can be lost, which is exactly what you are doing. The content is not covered, so stop saying that it is because you are saying the same false statement over and over and over. It is not useless, it is relevant. There is no valid reason to remove information based solely on the fact that it is specific to a difficulty level, enemy, group of enemies. As long as it is not the case I mentioned earlier, then it is still relevant. :Now, this is the last I have to say unless you come up with a reason to remove it that does not have you continually spouting a false statement. Lancer1289 23:20, April 22, 2012 (UTC) :: Actually, if you read, you'd see that I did in fact, acknowledge your statement. You claim that it's vague, but it isn't, and as usual, provide zero proof of this. There is nothing wrong with specifics in a guide, but if those specifics are irrelevant, which all of them are for reasons stated, then the specifics mentioned only serve to confuse the reader. Any professional writer of technical guides can tell you this. It may be difficult for you to understand, but your personal opinion is not a valid fact, and that's all you've been providing. But this is a waste of time. You're parrotting the same nonsense and ignoring valid reasons over and over again for no other purpose than your ego. Do whatever you want. Demonstrate, Part Deux Ah, I see this isn't the first time you've been asked not to remove valid content from pages. "Preparation" sections are valid and common sections of walkthroughs. They are handy references for players trying to beat the mission who would like to know what to bring along. They are particularly called for when a new enemy is introduced during the mission, and no just because we talk about the enemy some at the moment it is introduced does not mean we don't have a preparation section. These sorts of decisions can be especially important at higher difficulty levels, and one use these guides serve is as a reference for how to get through a mission at higher levels. Not all of this information is "necessary" for players on normal difficulty, and is sometimes therefore called out as e.g. an "Insanity Tip" even if it also works on other difficulties. Moving along, it is a fact that Carnage staggers even shielded enemies, and is in fact one of the relatively few crowd control powers that work against shielded enemies. Other contributors more senior than I have confirmed this, and I followed their precedent in including this fact here. Likewise Stasis bubble DOES catch multiple enemies; I have removed the modifier "entire" from "groups of enemies" at your behest, since perhaps that could be a deceptive wording, but I've personally seen a bubble catch as many as 5 enemies if the earlier ones are killed off. You have also mentioned that a section "is written not in professional format", whatever that means. Feel free to improve the writing style of a section if you don't like it, but do not remove the valid points of others. If you REALLY think a section should be removed, my suggestion is to go to the talk page for the article, make your case, and see if you get community support. That's both the correct and the polite way to go about these things. Cattlesquat (talk) 01:11, April 22, 2013 (UTC) There are already "handy references for players trying to beat the mission" within the pages already. They are the walkthroughs themselves: That is their purpose. Creating a first paragraph is useless merely because the information is already brought up: Repeated information is not useful. Further than that, the "Preparation" sections are extremely poorly written. They are more the ravings of a Liara fanboy than "handy references." No mention of evolving Overload to deal with the crowd control of shielded enemies? No mention of Pull to deal with Guardians, or modding weapons with the "Pierce Cover" mods? No mention that "Energy Drain" is a skill only possible on repeated playthroughs, since Tali isn't an available squad member at that point? On a related note, no mention that Shepard could take Stasis? As far as "Insanity Tip", while that's a stretch for usefulness as is, the Preparation sections as written don't cover that either. There's already a specific section covering strategies for specific enemies in far more detail on the Squad Members page. What happens with Phantoms is covered when the Phantoms first appear (as it should be). An extra framing section that does little more than praising Stasis and Liara does not serve the purpose of providing a detailed walkthrough. The sections will be rewritten to remove the bias. It will be proposed that the useless section be eliminated.Matt620 (talk) 02:07, April 22, 2013 (UTC) :Talk page proposal is the way to go. I've been told that when there's disagreement, as in this case, it is normal to allow 7 days for discussion of the issue before drawing conclusions about consensus. Cattlesquat (talk) 02:45, April 22, 2013 (UTC)